Delete a deployed project from Shiped. Deletion needs approval from the user: if the response asks for it, relay the approval link to the user and retry after they approve.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Project slug to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the human-approval requirement and the retry-after-approval workflow, which is non-obvious behavior. It stops short of stating irreversibility or permission requirements outright.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no waste. The destructive action is front-loaded and the approval mechanic follows immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, but the description covers the one non-trivial response behavior an agent must handle (approval request). For a single-parameter delete this is close to complete, missing only explicit irreversibility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, slug, and schema coverage is 100% with its own description ('Project slug to delete'). The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a deployed project from Shiped.' An agent can tell this is a destructive operation distinct from deploy_to_shiped and list_shiped_projects, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains the approval gating and what to do when approval is requested — relay link, retry after approval. That is real procedural guidance, but there is no statement of when not to use it or prerequisites beyond approval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.